Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately falsified
>> or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the other), as
>> opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
>
> I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the posts in
> this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the posts, there are
> claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury rates when a helmet
> law is introduces is direct proof that helmets are ineffective.

Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries in particular
types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies indicate to me
that such types of accidents must happen infrequently enough that they
should be considered insignificant. From that point of view, I certainly
consider the above statement to be correct, i.e. helmets are ineffective
for preventing a significant number of brain injuries.

--
Benjamin Lewis

 

[Bill Sornson]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:39:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> in [email protected]:

{CONTEXT???}

>> And somehow that means *I'm* evasive.

> Yup. Because you evaded the point and attacked instead the context.
> Happy to have cleared that up.

Sigh. I'll put it back:

***
OK, I think I get it.

Ed writes something.

You reply, "But Bill..."

I say, "Um, I didn't say what you're replying to"

And somehow that means I'm evasive.

Clear as mud. Thanks.

***
Still applies.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately
>>> falsified or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the
>>> other), as opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
>>
>> I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the
>> posts in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the
>> posts, there are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury
>> rates when a helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets
>> are ineffective.
>
> Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries

BRAIN injuries? Who said that?

> in particular types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies
> indicate to me that such types of accidents must happen infrequently
> enough that they should be considered insignificant. From that point
> of view, I certainly consider the above statement to be correct, i.e.
> helmets are ineffective for preventing a significant number of brain
> injuries.

What "above statement"? (The things you quoted don't say "brain injuries"
at all.)

Perhaps you're confusing /head injury/ (gash, bash, rash, bump, bonk,
concussion, etc.) with /brain/ injury?

Bill S.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Just zis Guy wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:47:39 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>>> "Every helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion" is /literally/
>>>> true?
>>> Yup.
>>>> You do realize how absurd that is, right?
>>> Of course I do. Sadly my Government does not, as the Hansard extracts
>>> prove.
>> So amend your argument to communicate clearly. As it was, it was
>> disingenuous.
>
> It was clear form the outset, your attempts to pretend otherwise
> notwithstanding.

I still disagree with the statement. It's not (necessarily) a vote for
compulsion regardless of whether it directly leads to compulsion or not, by
definition of the word "vote", which requires intent. That is how *I* have
always understood the word, and Webster and OED both appear to agree.

--
Benjamin Lewis

 

[Peter Clinch]

SMS wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately falsified
>> or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the other), as
>> opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
>
> I believe it's an accurate perception

Well there's the problem: it isn't, which leaves us with two basic
possibilities. Either you just plain don't understand what's being
said or you're deliberately being dishonest. Could be both, of course.

> after reading many of the posts
> in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the posts, there
> are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury rates when a
> helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets are ineffective.

In terms of net benefit, no change is not a net benefit. But
that's not the same as predicting in any given situation a helmet
must be ineffective. The people you idiotically persist in
referring to as "anti helmet zealots" are well aware of that, and
take a measure of care to make no suggestion otherwise.

> The basic problem with the AHZs is that they either don't understand the
> basic concepts of research, statistical data and evidence, or they
> pretend to not understand them because it suits their agenda.

If that's the characteristic that allows one to spot an AHZ then
step forward #1 candidate, Steven M. Scharf!

The people you think you're referring to are well aware of the
things you say they aren't aware of, and know the limits of what
can be predicted with an ecological data set. What *you* have yet
to take on board is that a study with a useless methodology wholly
unsuited to the data set it uses can't be usefully used to predict
*anything*, no matter what its authors are /trying/ to show. I
don't distrust such studies because it doesn't suit my agenda, I
distrust them because they have holes in so big you can drive
through a tank with the turret going round. It's also the case, as
has already been pointed out to you more than once, that I actually
had to change my agenda as it used to be actively pro-helmet, and
it was the dreadful quality of the evidence supporting that stance
that caused me to become sceptical. Though you keep "forgetting"
that, perhaps because it suits your agenda?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Bill Sornson]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Just zis Guy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:47:39 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
>> in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>>> "Every helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion" is /literally/
>>>>> true?

>>>> Yup.

>>>>> You do realize how absurd that is, right?

>>>> Of course I do. Sadly my Government does not, as the Hansard
>>>> extracts prove.

>>> So amend your argument to communicate clearly. As it was, it was
>>> disingenuous.

>> It was clear form the outset, your attempts to pretend otherwise
>> notwithstanding.

> I still disagree with the statement. It's not (necessarily) a vote
> for compulsion regardless of whether it directly leads to compulsion
> or not, by definition of the word "vote", which requires intent.
> That is how *I* have always understood the word, and Webster and OED
> both appear to agree.

You're right, of course, and Guy is wrong. Of course. (He even /admits/
it's absurd, above, but then tries to rationalize it by blaming the
government. LOL )

Of the many silly and meaningless spats in this thread, this one ranks right
up there.

Bill S.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:10:44 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> While they're not honest enough to flat out say they'd like to ban
>> helmets, they all but admitted as much by attacking people /solely/
>> for choosing to wear them.

> Right. So you can't actually cite *anyone*

I cite Flailor and Blurt. My /introduction/ to them was being attacked
merely for stating my choice to wear a lid. (Feel free to Google if you
doubt it; pretty sure they'd freely admit it, however.)

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>
>>>> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately
>>>> falsified or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the
>>>> other), as opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
>>>
>>> I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the
>>> posts in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the
>>> posts, there are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury
>>> rates when a helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets
>>> are ineffective.
>>
>> Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries
>
> BRAIN injuries? Who said that?

I did. Just now. That's what I'm interested in. For prevention of minor
injuries, equipment such as elbow pads would be *much* more effective.

>> in particular types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies
>> indicate to me that such types of accidents must happen infrequently
>> enough that they should be considered insignificant. From that point
>> of view, I certainly consider the above statement to be correct, i.e.
>> helmets are ineffective for preventing a significant number of brain
>> injuries.
>
> What "above statement"? (The things you quoted don't say "brain
> injuries" at all.)
> Perhaps you're confusing /head injury/ (gash, bash, rash, bump, bonk,
> concussion, etc.) with /brain/ injury?

Okay, I agree with the statement if you append "ineffective at preventing
brain injuries" (including concussions, which I consider to be brain
injuries). As I said above, if minor injuries are your concern then there
are more effective prevention strategies.

--
Benjamin Lewis

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately falsified
> >> or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the other), as
> >> opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
> >
> > I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the posts in
> > this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the posts, there are
> > claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury rates when a helmet
> > law is introduces is direct proof that helmets are ineffective.
>
> Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries in particular
> types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies indicate to me
> that such types of accidents must happen infrequently enough that they
> should be considered insignificant. From that point of view, I certainly
> consider the above statement to be correct, i.e. helmets are ineffective
> for preventing a significant number of brain injuries.
>
I'm not sure the research tells us that.

The population studies that have been discussed here suggest to me that
large increases in helmet use (e.g. due to promulgation of mandatory
helmet laws) have not produced consistent decreases in serious head
injury frequence among cyclists, and have more often been accompanied by
statistically significant increases in serious head injury frequency.

No one seems to be sure why this is so. The most common speculation
I've seen includes:
1) that helmet wearers take more risks because they think they're safe
wearing helmets (risk compensation)
2) that the physical properties of helmets increase the severity of some
head injuries and cause head contact with other objects that would not
otherwise have occurred
3) that helmets don't provide protection against axonal brain damage and
therefore provide little or no protection in accidents involving head
strikes that can be expected to occur at recreational cycling speeds
4) that overall reductions in cycling participation have reduced the
"safety in numbers" effect.

There are undoubtedly others.

Some of these (e.g. 2) and 3)) would, if supported by strong research
evidence, support a conclusion that wearing a helmet is less safe for
all cyclists.

1) and 4) would, if supported by strong research evidence, support a
conclusion that popular perception about the protective properties of
helmets increases risky behaviour among cyclists and drivers, especially
when helmet use increases significantly. But they would not prove that
a cyclist about to crash is less safe if wearing a helmet.

I speculate that all 4 of these factors comes into play, but still can't
conclude that I'm safer NOT wearing a helmet.

Rick

 

[Burt]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The basic problem with the AHZs is that they either don't understand the
> basic concepts of research, statistical data and evidence, or they
> pretend to not understand them because it suits their agenda.

And Straw Man Scharf's obsessive word for today is "basic"

 

[Burt]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:10:44 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
>> in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> While they're not honest enough to flat out say they'd like to ban
>>> helmets, they all but admitted as much by attacking people /solely/
>>> for choosing to wear them.
>
>> Right. So you can't actually cite *anyone*
>
> I cite Flailor and Blurt. My /introduction/ to them was being attacked
> merely for stating my choice to wear a lid. (Feel free to Google if you
> doubt it; pretty sure they'd freely admit it, however.)

"New, slimline B***S**t - 100% fact-free!! Are you suffering from too many
facts! Let opinions rule your life! Who needs facts anyway, they just get
in the way of being totally opinionated. Lose facts and start lying with
the B***S**t home course in illogicallity."

Wrong. Again. I have attacked you, but never because you choose to wear a
helmet. That is your choice. I attack you because you are stupid,
hypocritical, innumerate, illogical self-opinionated and foul-mouthed.

Feel free to look at the evidence. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't do
evidence.
>
>

 

[Peter Clinch]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

<snip good points>

> I speculate that all 4 of these factors comes into play, but still can't
> conclude that I'm safer NOT wearing a helmet.

No clear net benefit is no clear net benefit, safety wise. That is
indeed not the same as a clear net safety reduction. However, you do
have clear comfort and convenience reductions and at an overall risk
level where people aren't willing to put up with those for other
similarly risky things. Which is not of itself a universal deal-breaker
on helmet wearing, though it does suggest undue weight is being placed
on the dangers of cycling.

For myself, I stopped wearing one partly for comfort and convenience but
also to demonstrate that cycling can be an everyday, reasonably safe,
healthy activity that does not require special armour. Though it
bothers me that some agencies /do/ see every helmet worn as a good
reason to push for an MHL, I'm not going to make any insistence beyond
pointing that out that people should throw away their lids.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> <snip good points>
>
> > I speculate that all 4 of these factors comes into play, but still can't
> > conclude that I'm safer NOT wearing a helmet.
>
> No clear net benefit is no clear net benefit, safety wise. That is
> indeed not the same as a clear net safety reduction. However, you do
> have clear comfort and convenience reductions and at an overall risk
> level where people aren't willing to put up with those for other
> similarly risky things. Which is not of itself a universal deal-breaker
> on helmet wearing, though it does suggest undue weight is being placed
> on the dangers of cycling.
>
> For myself, I stopped wearing one partly for comfort and convenience but
> also to demonstrate that cycling can be an everyday, reasonably safe,
> healthy activity that does not require special armour. Though it
> bothers me that some agencies /do/ see every helmet worn as a good
> reason to push for an MHL, I'm not going to make any insistence beyond
> pointing that out that people should throw away their lids.
>
>

A well thought out, well reasoned post. You've considered the situation
and your personal experience(s) and decided not to wear a helmet. Just
as others may consider
the situation along with their personal experience(s) and decide to
wear a helmet, at
least some of the time. Who can argue with freedom of choice?

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> A well thought out, well reasoned post. You've considered the
> situation and your personal experience(s) and decided not to wear a
> helmet. Just as others may consider the situation along with their
> personal experience(s) and decide to wear a helmet, at least some of
> the time. Who can argue with freedom of choice?

The people that persistently do, is the regrettably self evident answer
to that final question. That'll be the folks trying to force us to wear
them via MHLs. Like it or not (and I certainly don't like it), they
/are/ part of the equation.

Personally I see it as wrong to have that point override a personal
choice to wear a lid, but OTOH I do think people should realise it is
not a decision with no impact beyond the individual making the choice.
In other words, if all else is equal then I think role modelling the
fact that cycling does not need helmets is a worthwhile thing to do.
But, of course, all else may /not/ be equal from a personal perspective.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:58:04 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In other words, if all else is equal then I think role modelling the
>fact that cycling does not need helmets is a worthwhile thing to do.
>But, of course, all else may /not/ be equal from a personal perspective.

Well said.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>Sigh. I'll put it back:

Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing more
than comedy value anyway.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:08:31 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <Ps7zg.686$%[email protected]>:

>> Amazing that the BMJ was prepared to print this "false" view.
>> Something to do with its being backed by robust evidence, I guess...

>Hmmm. Tony goes away and Guy reappears. Interesting...

Congratulations on evading the point. Again.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 30 Jul 2006 12:20:25 -0700, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>"Guy" is pulling the slack whilst the Great Leader Raven is away.

Dr Raven is not my leader, but I would not mind if he were.

>Of course, as we know, slack isn't the only thing "Guy" is apt to be
>pulling.

Yup. Your leg, for example. Not that you'd notice, being as free of
humour as you are of sense.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:30:20 -0700, Benjamin Lewis
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>> It was clear form the outset, your attempts to pretend otherwise
>> notwithstanding.

>I still disagree with the statement. It's not (necessarily) a vote for
>compulsion regardless of whether it directly leads to compulsion or not, by
>definition of the word "vote", which requires intent. That is how *I* have
>always understood the word, and Webster and OED both appear to agree.

Like it or not (and trust me, we don't either), that's what our
politicians have said.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:40:05 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>>> While they're not honest enough to flat out say they'd like to ban
>>> helmets, they all but admitted as much by attacking people /solely/
>>> for choosing to wear them.

>> Right. So you can't actually cite *anyone*

>I cite Flailor and Blurt. My /introduction/ to them was being attacked
>merely for stating my choice to wear a lid. (Feel free to Google if you
>doubt it; pretty sure they'd freely admit it, however.)

Please give the posting IDs for the posts in which either of these two
posters (whose names I do not recognise from this thread,
incidentally) have advocated a law banning helmet use.

And you were not being attacked for choosing to wear a polystyrene
foam deflector beanie, at least not by me - my problem all along has
been with your asserting that your opinion based on prejudice has
equal validity with one based on evidence. I have said this several
times.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound